Saturday, July 5, 2014

I understand that gun loons universally DON'T like the use of the word WEAPON...since it really has minimal good connotation. They prefer gun or firearm or apparently "sporting rifle" for impression's sake.

Gov. Chris Christie today vetoed a gun control bill that would have reduced the permitted size of ammunition magazines, saying it would do nothing to reduce gun violence.

“This is the very embodiment of reform in name only. It simply defies common sense to believe that imposing a new and entirely arbitrary number of bullets that can be lawfully loaded into a firearm will somehow eradicate, or even reduce, future instances of mass violence,” Christie said. “Nor is it sufficient to claim that a ten-round capacity might spare an eleventh victim.”

Everything he said is wrong. As inanimate objects go, there's nothing more evil and destructive than high-capacity magazines. Lanza would have had to change magazines 15 times instead of only 5. Loughner killed someone with the 13th round. Nevertheless, lying gun-rights fanatics insist the magazine size makes no difference. And now we know for sure which side Gov. Christie is on.

Friday, July 4, 2014

Is there anything we can do to stop the cascade of corpses appearing nightly on our screens, large and small?

Yes, there is. We can repeal the Second Amendment. That's a good place to start. That's theonly place to start, because every effort we make at sensible gun regulation runs up against that brick wall and falls down as dead as the latest victims of random, massively predictable gun violence.

The Second Amendment assures we can do nothing to reduce the gun carnage that kills about 30,000 Americans per year. True, 20,000 of them are suicides, but the Second Amendment makes suicide far too easy. Over half of all successful suicides are by self-inflicted gunshot and at that range you rarely miss.

I wonder how many of those gunshot suicides would change their minds if they had a second chance? The Second Amendment could be called the "No Second Chance" Amendment, for suicides and rash, un-premeditated murders alike. A gun just makes killing too easy.

Every time a kindergarten full of kids is shot up and an outraged nation mourns, somebody will call for a new law, something simple and obvious, like limiting a magazine to say, a hundred rounds, and for a day or two it seems like a good idea. Then comes the "You can't do that, it's against the Second Amendment!" and the NRA cackles into its Dracula cloak.

The NRA is entirely correct. We can't do squat about the epidemic of gun violence plaguing the nation because the Second Amendment won't let us.

The Second Amendment is the only thing that is immune to gunshots in America. The Second Amendment is lead-proof.

But it's not vote-proof. We can repeal it and we should. I'm not saying it will be easy, many people are fanatic about their guns. They say having weaponry is a right worth dying for. They've got that right.

The original justification for the Second Amendment was, as far as anyone can tell, to protect the people from tyranny. Well, actually they said something about a well-regulated militia but I don't think even they knew what that meant.

But whatever it meant, it is clearly obsolete now. How is a handheld weapon supposed to protect one from a government that can shoot a predator drone through your bedroom window before you can take the safety off your AK?

Senate Bill 1254, sponsored by state Senator Curt McKenzie (R-13), will permit qualified retired law enforcement officers and law-abiding adults who have obtained an Idaho enhanced license to carry a concealed weapon to possess a concealed firearm on public college or university campuses. House Bill 399, which also takes effect today, will lower the minimum age to hunt big game from twelve years old to ten years old, while retaining the requirement that an individual younger than twelve must be accompanied in the field by an adult licensed to hunt in Idaho.

"A
nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain
uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that
requires ignorance for its support."Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

You still saying that "well regulated" means "well-trained"? How can a government be "well-trained"?

Thursday, July 3, 2014

At approximately 3 p.m. Tuesday, police responded to a call regarding a customer dispute at the Enmark on the corner of Park Avenue and North Lee Street.A man carrying a holstered firearm entered the store to make a purchase. Another customer, also with a holstered firearm, approached him and demanded to see his identification and firearms license, according to the Valdosta Police Department report.The customer making demands for ID pulled his firearm from its holster but never pointed it at the other customer, who said he was not obligated to show any permits or identification.

Please. I destroyed you last time you brought up Kellerman. Don’t you remember how I brought up that the same study says you’re 4.4 times more likely to be murdered if you rent your home, rather than own? Then you go off saying it’s because they tend to have less income, etc. but this was right after you explained how Kellerman’s study isolated each factor from each other. Income was supposed to be removed from the gun ownership result, right? So why wasn’t it removed from renting? It was comical.

I'm always amused how gunloons claim to have debunked or disproved or "destroyed" scientific studies without having read or understood them. It's a real talent.

In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellerman (and several other co-authors) published a peer-reviewed article in the New England Journal of Medicine. Among the findings was keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. Naturally, such a conclusion runs counter to the gunloon religious tenet that guns prevent all crimes and bad happenings and make you more manly, etc.Now did Dr. Kellermann and his co-authors use some kind of voodoo pseudo-statistical gimmickry to come up with his findings? Hardly. He used the exact same methodology used by epidemiologists the world over. In fact, it's the same methodology used to ascertain that cigarette smoking cause cancer and other health ailments.TS's comments regarding renters and income demonstrate he hasn't read or understood the study. When researchers "control" for various factors--what they are doing is trying to isolate a certain factor from environmental and behavioral variables. For instance, health problems from smoking has to be controlled for certain variables such as genetics, exposure to occupational hazards, etc.Dr. Kellermann's study showed that illicit drug use in a home carried the highest murder risk increase (5.7X). Being a renter (4.4X), domestic violence (4.4X),a gun in the home (2.7X), and a household member with an arrest record (2.5X). Where TS gets confused is that he "thinks" these murder risks are a combination; they aren't. IOW, if one has both illicit drug use and a gun in the house, the murder risk increases dramatically. The more present variables, the greater increase in murder risk.

Target has finally made its decision about firearms in its stores. The retail giant is telling its customers to leave their guns at home.

"Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so," Target interim CEO John Mulligan said in a statement published by Target's in-house online magazine on Wednesday. "But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law."

By the way, "Celebratory" Gun Fire is illegal in some places. It became illegal in Virginia on the 1st of July under Brandon's law: which was named for Brendon Mackey, a seven year old who was killed in a parking lot on the 4th of July holding his dad's hand. It is also illegal in Arizona.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Shots were fired at a fleeing driver after a hit and run Saturday night in Fenton. A silver BMW struck another vehicle at the Gravois Bluffs shopping area and drove off. The other vehicle followed after the BMW and they met up in the area of old Hwy 141 and Romaine Creek Rd.

When BMW stopped, and a man and woman in the other vehicle got out to confront the driver. At some point, the BMW driver decided to drive off again and, in doing so, struck the woman. The man then pulled out a gun and fired at the BMW as it drove away.

The woman was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.

Police later found the BMW and its driver. He was not hurt. No word yet any charges.

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

We hold--this is the holding. That means this is the only part of the decision with actual legal value as a precedent. Of course, Scalia doesn't give a fuck about precedent--even if he wrote the opinion!

Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights:this sounds like a background check, and a pretty extensive one at that.

to register his handgun and must issue him a license--that's pretty clear language.

Well, maybe to everyone but a gun loon.

In other words, SCOTUS says that registration, licensing, and background checks DO NOT violate the Second Amendment.

No where in this holding are the words "individual right" mentioned. It may be bantered about all through the dicta, but one learns that dicta has zip value for precedent sometime in the first week of law school.

Why?

Because that is how the court explains its thought processes in reaching the holding.

But, we are going to go to the dicta for other guidance as to what "reasonable regulation" might mean, especially since Heller made it pretty clear that the newly created right was severely limited (see holding above):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century
cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346;
Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of
the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions
on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490;
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The
American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although
we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full
scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms
by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

McDonald v.Chicago was similarly reassuring:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while
striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the
home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear
in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding
regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation
does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

In fact, looking at these decisions, the current state of the District of Columbia's gun laws, and some other strict gun laws that are still standing: there is no reason for a legislator who claims to support the Second Amendment to NOT support background checks and registration. Nothing in either Heller or McDonald prevents the adoption of reasonable laws to reduce gun violence.

After all, the Heller and McDonald decisions both held these measures do not violate the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Additionally, most Second Amendment challenges to gun laws have proven to be failures. The Second Amendment has been a pretty poor defence to gun laws in the past, and will probably continue to remain that way.

Of course, we could get into the Constitutionality of a court reviewing of legislative acts...

ONLY in the crazy world of the failure of gun culture fetishist do you take a gun to a job interview.

ONLY in the crazy world of the gun culture fetishist do businesses have to tolerate idiots with guns on their premises as routine, no matter how dangerous -- and of course the gun fetishists are in total denial about their lack of safety or absence of sound judgement.

Firearms are an impulsive weapon in the crimes of murder/suicide. Without those weapons, far fewer of those crimes occur because of that contribution of impulse.

A New York man who walked into a business looking for a job on Monday
shot two workers, and then turned the gun on himself when he did not
immediately get it.
According to the PIX11,
54-year-old Cameron Waithe asked Oscar Ramirez for a job just after
walking into C&A Iron Works in Brooklyn at around 11 a.m. on Monday.
“Oscar said he should go talk to the manager,” employee Marcos Chantes told the New York Post.
Company manager, Joselo Gonzalez, then directed Waithe upstairs where he could talk to the owner of the company.
“I see him looking nervous,” Chantes recalled. “He’s looking behind his back like someone is looking for him.”
That’s when Waithe pulled out a gun and took aim at Ramirez.
“Oscar said, ‘Hey, hey, what’s happening?’ And he just shot him,”
Chantes explained. “I ran and started yelling, ‘Everyone get out, get
out.’?”
Waithe fired his gun eight times over the next ten minutes. Ramirez
fled the building after being shot in the stomach, and 66-year-old
employee Armando Tapia was also hit.
For hours after that, the shooter sat barricaded in an office with a
gun to his head, while NYPD negotiator Lt. Jack Cambria said that he had
“positive” negotiations. Waithe agreed to give up his car keys, and a
bomb-like device during the talks."We engaged in dialogue and then, unprovoked, he shot himself,” Cambria remarked.
Ramirez was taken to Lutheran Medical Center, where he was listed in
critical condition. Tapia was reportedly also at Lutheran Medical Center
in stable condition.
Police said that Waithe had a criminal history that included assault,
criminal possession of marijuana and resisting arrest. But his friends
and family were shocked to learn of the incident.

No mention of mental illness; this was just a bloody-minded asshole with a gun that he could acquire far too easily.

Remember - within a year of a criminal conviction for marijuana possession, no record would remain on the NICS data base.

Thank the NRA and gun fanatics for that contribution to gun violence.

That is IF his name was ever submitted to the NICS data base in the first place -- more than half the names who should be in the national data base are NOT.

Thank the NRA and gun fanatics for that contribution to gun violence.

So long as the resisting arrest crime was plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, in spite of it being a violent crime, it would not prevent him from legally buying a firearm from an FFL seller.

Thank the NRA and gun fanatics for that contribution to gun violence.

Think about, as well, the cost of law enforcement, the danger to law enforcement, and the hospitalization costs for NOTHING OF VALUE because of this jerk having easy access to firearms.

Think about, as well, the cost of the lost productivity of these workers, the loss to this business, and the costs of hospitalization and possibly physical and psychological therapy as a result of this shooting --- all for NOTHING OF VALUE because of the obsession with violence and firearms by a segment of our society.

Guns should be much harder to acquire and own.

Guns should be much harder to use.

Gun ownership should be mandated to require insurance coverage, for liability, for the damages that gun owners do.

And no -- where there is stricter gun ownership regulation, there are FEWER criminals with guns, and law enforcement is at less risk, and there is less cost associated with gun violence as well.

New York has excellent gun laws; the problem firearms come from out of state, from those states with LAX gun laws.

We need national regulation that prevents the people in the "bad gun law states" from victimizing the people across the nation, including those in the "good gun law" states like New York by providing, selling, and/or transporting guns that would otherwise be prohibited to people who would otherwise be prohibited from acquiring them.

In accordance with newly enacted legislation, the gun owner will permanently forfeit his right to own guns, spend 10 days in jail and report to a probation officer for 10 years, submitting to regular and random home inspections, to ensure compliance. The new law signed by the governor earlier this week is called the "one strike you're out gun law." Supporters are optimistic that this year alone thousands of lives and millions of dollars will be saved.

What I'd like to clarify is exactly to whom this sanction should apply. The simple answer is anyone who does anything wrong with a gun.

1. dropped gun2. negligent discharge3. improperly stored weapon in the hands of a child 4. improperly stored weapon stolen5. brandishing6. lost gun7. bringing a gun to the airport because you forgot you had it

Obviously, each of these can have a wide range of consequences and should not all result in the same exact punishment. A judge would have discretion concerning the appropriate jail time, fines, etc., but the forfeiture of gun rights is not up for bargain.

A vendor accidentally shot a woman in the leg while demonstrating a gun and holster at a central Pennsylvania gun show.

The Columbia County district attorney's office will determine whether the vendor, Geoffrey Hawk, will face criminal charges stemming from the shooting Saturday at the Bloomsburg Fairgrounds, Officer Brad Sharrow said.

Hawk, 44, of Warminster, didn't immediately return calls Sunday to his cellphone and business, In Case of Emergency Enterprises. He was manning a booth for his business at the Eagle Arms Gun show at the time of the shooting.

Hawk told police he thought the gun was unloaded when he demonstrated a concealed-carry wallet holster to the woman, Krista Gearhart, 25, of Orangeville. Gearhart was treated and released for a thigh wound at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville.

Hawk told police he had done the same demonstration about 20 times without incident before the shooting, "racking" the gun's slide to clear it of bullets each time, Sharrow said. Somehow, the gun was loaded when Gearhart was shot.

Police said Hawk told them he had left the gun on display when he completed background checks on some customers and believes it's possible someone loaded the gun when he was busy.

Joel Koehler, the gun show organizer, said Hawk was asked to close his booth and leave the show, which continued Sunday. The show has an entrance sign that says "No Loaded Weapons" and Koehler said his staff checks all guns to ensure they are unloaded before they are brought in for display.

Let's count the acts of negligence and the lies.

Acts of negligence

1. He didn't check the chamber of the gun before demonstrating the draw.

2. He muzzled the lady while demonstrating the draw.

3. He pulled the trigger while muzzling the lady.

Lies

1. He said he demonstrated the draw 20 times before and always racked the slide to clear the chamber each time. But, suddenly this time he failed to do so.

2. He blamed it on the gun. It just went off.

3. He blamed the gun being loaded on someone else who must have loaded the gun while he wasn't looking. Of course if he'd checked the chamber before aiming the gun at the lady and pulling the trigger there would have been no problem.

In another report I saw that the wounded customer is very understanding and considers it a freak accident. She feels bad for the negligent and dangerous idiot who shot her. Most likely the authorities will take a similar view. The most we can reasonably expect is a slap on the wrist, some kind of misdemeanor, and he'll be right back in the negligence business.

The reason we need a strict one-strike-you're-out policy about gun misuse is because lying idiot gun owners like this guy need to be disarmed before they kill someone. Chances are this is not his first offense. He probably should have been disarmed long ago.

From Raw Story
"A 13-year-old boy was arrested on Monday and charged with reckless homicide in the shooting death of a friend, WCPO-TV reported.
The victim’s father identified him to WCPO as Hawken Hemmerle, also
13 years of age. The shooting reportedly happened inside the victim’s
home when the two boys were playing with a loaded handgun.WLWT-TV reported
that the shooting ocurred around 2:15 p.m. on Monday. Hemmerle’s
father’s girlfriend, who works as a nurse, called 911 while she was
administering CPR to the victim.
Paramedics
later took Hemmerle to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead
from a gunshot to the head. The suspect has not been identified.
Reckless homicide is classified as a third-degree felony charge in Ohio."

Monday, June 30, 2014

"I can't tell you how many senior executives at firearms companies,
over a beer when no one's watching, will say, 'You do know we realize
that, of course, at least a third of our customers shouldn't be let
within five miles of a gun."

24/7 Wall St. discussed the CDC’s figures with John Roman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy think tank. Roman explained the probability of accidents, suicides, and domestic violence goes up in homes with guns. Americans are “three times more likely to have a suicide in a home with a gun than [they] are in a home without a gun.”

According to Roman, “The overwhelming trend is that strong gun law states have seen dramatic declines in violence. Weak gun law states have not seen the same decline.” While stricter gun laws lead to less violence, Roman noted, this relationship is not exactly straightforward, because people may purchase a gun in one state and bring it into another. “As long as there are weak gun law states, even strong gun law states will see gun violence.”

Although not necessarily gun related, violent crime, overall, was higher in many of these states. Seven states reported at least 420 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in 2011, versus the national rate of just 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 residents that year. There were more than 600 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska, second only to Tennessee. Some specific crimes were even more likely in many of these states. Six of the 10 states reported more than 3,500 incidents of property crime per 100,00 residents, for example, versus a national rate of just 2,908.

Perhaps the authors have been reading our never-ending discussions about gun-violence rates vs. overall violence. In this article they've covered it pretty well.

According to authorities in Arizona, a man who fatally shot another man inside of a suburban Phoenix Walmart on Sunday was acting in self-defense.

Kyle Wayne Quadlin, 25, opened fire at Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, 36, following an argument at a service counter. Investigators who looked into surveillance footage from the incident said both men were fighting before the shooting occurred.

"Mr. Quadlin was losing the fight and indicated he 'was in fear for his life,' so he pulled his gun and shot Mr. Belinte Chee," police said in a statement.

After the shooting, Quadlin remained at the Walmart for a short while and then fled from the scene. Authorities were able to locate him after family members called police to report where he was.

Though Quadlin has not been booked in the case, investigators will send their investigation for review by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

Joseph Francis Farah, a leading ‘birther’ who runs the right-wing, conspiracy website WorldNetDaily, was reportedly caught by TSA agents on Sunday with a loaded .38-caliber revolver in his carry-on bag as he passed through security at Dulles International Airport outside Washington.

Farah, who denounced TSA screening practices in a 2010 column, faces a class 1 misdemeanor charge for carrying a gun in an airport terminal, according to a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. He was released pending a summons.

The Washington Post first reported the incident yesterday but described the individual in question as Joseph Farah, 49, of Centreville, Va. Hatewatch confirmed with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority today that in fact Joseph Francis Farah, who is 59, was cited for the weapon charge.

“A federal judge on Thursday upheld Colorado’s new gun-control laws that mandated background checks for all gun sales and limited the capacity of ammunition magazines to no more than 15 rounds,” denverpost.com reports. Click here to read Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger’s ruling. Or not, as it contains statements bound to raise your blood pressure, starting with “the Supreme Court does not equate the Second Amendment ‘right to keep and bear arms’ to guarantee an individual the ‘right to use any firearm one chooses for self-defense.’” Thank you “reasonable regulations”Heller loophole. As for ammunition magazines . . .

Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense.

Huh. So police aren’t civilians. Who knew? Anyway, who cares how many rounds it takes to defend oneself or with what weapon? I thought the Second Amendment was pretty clear about Americans’ civil and natural rights (the bit about shall not be infringed) – whether or not the infringements are “worthwhile” or not.

Mikeb: A tiny bit of common sense and honesty is all it takes to answer your question. If all guns magically disappeared today, do you think the overall murders would go up, go down or stay the same??TS: Stay the same.In his typical way, TS went on to justify his amazing answer with a non-sequitur argument about criminals buying guns in neighboring states. He desperately wants to avoid looking directly at the question posed.In order for the number of murders to stay the same if all guns magically disappeared, you would have to believe that every single gun murder would be committed with another weapon, including all the multiple murders. Lanza would have killed 27 people with what, a knife, a bomb. Perhaps James Holmes would have clubbed all those people to death in the movie theater. I suppose Loughner and Cho could have used machetes or samurai swords. The absurdity of this position is so apparent that in the other threadI thought TS was going to avoid answering altogether. I don't think he's a stupid man and I don't think his opinion of me is such that he'd lie and expect me to buy it. That leaves only one possibility that I can think of. His bias for the gun-rights argument is so deep that it blinds him to obvious truths.If guns magically disappeared, there would be fewer murders and lower rates of violence. It could not be otherwise since 70% of all murders are committed with guns, the most lethal and efficient tool for the job. The reason TS's sub-conscience cannot allow such an admission is that once it's accepted the entire gun-rights position against gun control crumbles. If proper gun control laws were implemented fewer people would own guns legally and fewer criminals would enjoy the gun availability they do now. Lives would be saved.

Diego B. Ortiz Mendez, 30, previously pleaded guilty to a felony count of aggravated assault. This morning, Judge Rick Sommers sentenced Ortiz Mendez to 10 years in prison with four years suspended. He must also make nearly $15,000 in restitution for the victim's medical bills.

After a dispute between two groups of people, Ortiz Mendez fired a single shot from a 9-millimeter handgun that struck Whitney Schaunaman, of Aberdeen, in the back of the neck, said Chris White, chief deputy state's attorney for Brown County. Schaunaman was taken to the hospital and released later in the day. Both Sommers and White said there's no reason to believe Ortiz Mendez was trying to hit Schaunaman with the shot. But the incident was still serious and could have been even worse if the bullet had struck the victim even a centimeter closer to the center of the neck, instead of near the outside of her neck, White said.

"This could have ended up so badly that you could have ended up with life in prison," Sommers told Ortiz Mendez as he tried to convince the defendant that the sentence was not harsh or unfair.

Ortiz Mendez apologized to Schaunaman's family — her father was in the courtroom — and said it was never his intent to hurt anybody. He said he was trying to fire a warning shot to attract the attention of police because he was fearful of his life as the result of the altercation between the two groups.

Men who were with Schaunaman were hassling and bothering Ortiz Mendez while both parties were in the Zoo Bar and outside after the bar closed, said Josh Finer, Ortiz Mendez's attorney. When one of the men ran to his vehicle, Ortiz Mendez became fearful and went to his car and grabbed his gun, Finer said. Shortly thereafter, the shot was fired.